[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 9, 1995
.1534 
[English]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): I declare the meeting open, and I thank everybody for their attendance. We have an agenda, the main estimates, vote 10 under Parliament, program review and new technologies. We have a list of witnesses.
Mr. Paré, parliamentary librarian, thank you for attending.
Maybe I should ask Mr. Paré if he would like to open. We could introduce Mr. Paré's colleagues when they actually come to testify.
Mr. Richard Paré (Parliamentary Librarian, Library of Parliament): Thank you,Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here today and I would like to introduce my colleagues: Mr. Jacques Cardinal, the director general of administration and personnel; Mr. François LeMay, director general of information and technical services; and Mr. Hugh Finsten, director general of the research branch.
.1535
Mr. Chairman, I would like to start on a historical note. I would like to inform the members of the committee that the first meeting of this standing joint committee was held 145 years ago this June, in 1850. It's not considered by many as the one of the most flamboyant committees. It certainly remains one of the oldest and most prestigious standing joint committees in our Canadian parliamentary history. At that time the establishment of the committee included five members of the Legislative Assembly and four members of the Legislative Council.
Turning now to our agenda of today, I would like to address the budget for 1995-96.
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Senator Riel): May I ask you a question, sir?
Mr. Paré: Yes, please.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Riel): Where was the conference held?
Mr. Paré: At that time, it was held in Toronto.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Riel): In Toronto?
Mr. Paré: Yes. Parliament met in Toronto in 1850.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Riel): And Toronto was called York?
Mr. Paré: That was perhaps still the case, but I would have to check.
Mrs. Debien (Laval-Est): Mr. Paré, I'm going to be nasty. Were there MPs representing Quebec?
Mr. Paré: Yes. You aren't being nasty at all.
Mrs. Debien: I'm curious.
Mr. Paré: Amongst the members of the committee, there was a representative from the Assembly, who was Mr. Chauveau, and there was a representative of the Legislative Council,Mr. Taché.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): Might certain historians reject your thesis? Do you agree, colleagues? It was called Toronto at that time.
[English]
Mr. Paré: Mr. Chairman, to turn to the agenda of today, on the budget of 1995-96, following a request by committee member Mrs. Daphne Jennings, we tabled a draft copy of the main estimates for 1995-96 for the Library of Parliament at the meeting held on December 6, 1994. Whereas the library proposed to both speakers that the 1995-96 estimates remain unchanged at $16,082,000, the Speaker of the House of Commons noted that the library, like the House and other public institutions, must simultaneously deal with the need for restraint and the requirement to restructure its services in light of new technology and the evolving needs of its clients. We were asked to review our estimates with the objective of achieving a 5% decrease for 1995-96.
We advised the speakers that such a reduction would represent a serious diminution of already depleted resources. We proposed at the time to undertake a thorough program review to consider all library programs with a view to further rationalization, where possible, to identify savings and to indicate what services to members could be cut back.
The speakers approved revised main estimates of $15,716,000, a reduction of $366,000, or 2.28%, in line with the government expenditure reduction program. Funding in the amount of $45,000 to train members of Parliament on the use of Internet was not approved. This will have to be absorbed in our budget.
I have provided for the distribution to all members of this committee copies of the main estimates 1995-96 for the library.
In line with the government expenditure reduction program, the library has already achieved reductions in 1993-94 and in 1995-96, as you can see on the slides. In 1995-96 the reduction is $366,000.
.1540
For the fiscal year 1996-97, the requested reduction is $258,000, or 1.8%.
However, in the 1995 federal budget - the last budget - cuts in the amount of $32 million, or 10.2%, for Parliament and the Governor General were identified from 1995-96 to 1997-98. We expect that the library will be required to absorb a share of these reductions.
[Translation]
The compounded impact of these reductions places the Library in a difficult financial situation in 1995-96 and critical situation for 1996-97.
Whereas we have been able to absorb previous cuts by reducing staffing and by reallocating resources internally, such actions will no longer be sufficient. Staffing levels were significantly reduced in 1994-95 and we will have to reduce staffing reductions in 1995-96 and in 1996-97.
The shortfall in salaries and wages has required the Library to eliminate approximately seven full-time equivalents in 1994-95. The library will be operating with 10 fewer staff or full-time equivalents in 1995-96 and at least 14 fewer staff in 1996-97 compared to the 1993-94 establishment of 252. The decrease is apparent on the slide.
[English]
It is therefore necessary to undertake a thorough program review exercise. I have provided to the clerks of the committee, for distribution to all members, copies of the process we intend taking, which includes the objectives, the evaluation criteria, the cost analysis, the operational framework, and a tentative schedule.
The purpose of this review is to ensure that the library continues to provide Parliament with the most effective information, documentation, research and analysis services in accordance with the budgetary restraints imposed by the new fiscal environment. The objectives are to identify specific areas in which the library can rationalize its operations and institute cut-backs as necessary to meet budgetary reductions.
As a first step, a cost analysis of the various products and services of the library is currently being completed. This should be completed by the end of May.
In phase 1, each branch will then proceed to review all its operations, services, and products according to predetermined evaluation criteria.
Phase 2 will involve the re-engineering and the reorganization of certain operations and services that have been identified in phase 1.
For some specific products and services, we may have to survey the senators and members of the House of Commons.
We hope to complete this project this year.
[Translation]
In our 1994 planning document, we had noted that budgetary savings could also be achieved, in part, through a rationalization of services on the Hill. Thi is in line with recommendations made in the 1992 Auditor General's report to the Senate and House of Commons on matters of joint interest to consolidate a number of services on Parliament Hill in order to avoid duplication and reduce costs.
Preliminary discussions on this have already been held with the Senate and House of Commons.
[English]
I would like to turn now to new technology, because it's the second item on the agenda.
At a previous presentation I mentioned that the Library of Parliament did not develop new technology but used it when judged appropriate. I would like to report on the situation and acquaint you with its orientation.
For two years now, our online catalogue has been available to our clientele who have access to the OASIS network and to clients whose computers are equipped with a modem. Training was offered to those interested. Here again, the introduction of the Ethernet network gave us the opportunity to modify access to the catalogue and to render it easier to use. This easier access will be achieved when our systems are connected to Ethernet in early summer.
.1545
The implementation of a client-server application in the coming year will allow us to consult simultaneously our catalogue and those of other institutions who comply with the internationally established and recognized standard, Z39.50. The client-server application will permit us eventually to enrich our collection by adding full documents, text, sound and/or images.
I take this opportunity to show you, as a premiere, the new logo and the name selected for our catalogue. Previously we referred to it as ``multiLIS'', which is the trade name of the software used by the library system. The Library of Parliament catalogue is now called ``PARLCAT''.
This is the logo itself, and this is the way it will be presented on publications. This is the guide of ``PARLCAT'', which is presently reviewed and will be available in a short time.
The Internet pilot project on the Hill is doing well. Due to the success of the technical tests, the number of participants was increased from 7 to 32 members' offices.
The library is responsible for training, and up to now more than 60 people have participated in training sessions. However, Internet access by employees of the library is still limited, because the necessary software is not yet in place, nor is it connected to Ethernet.
The gopher menu developed by the Information and Technical Services Branch staff to help clients retrieve information was loaded in March. Among the first compilations prepared by the Library of Parliament to be made available on the Parliamentary Internet parlementaire are Party Standings in the House of Commons, including totals by party and province and Officers of party caucuses and executives of federal political parties. The official launch of the information server will probably take place in late May.
[Translation]
What does the future hold for us? The Library receives more and more electronic information. Moreover, by using Internet, some documents judged essential will be stored locally to ensure conservation. We will therefore be able to retrieve them from a local file server that will guarantee us more rapid access.
In order to improve the quality of service to parliamentarians, we are now proceeding with the creation of an automated reference question management system that will be tested in the coming months.
We are also putting into place an automated system to store the work of research offices of the Library. In order to allow us to profit from its information and still maintain and ensure confidentiality, access to this system will be very limited.
There is a conservation problem for the library's thousands of clipping files. Over the next year, with the equipment recently purchased, we will begin transferring the most important files to compact disks. They will be made available on the CD server.
We believe that the amount of information available electronically will continue to grow at a very fast pace but printed information will be around for many years to come. This view is substantiated by authors such as Raymond Kurzweil, Charles Goodrum, Miriam Drake and publishers such as Richard Snyder from Simon and Schuster.
[English]
With shrinking funding for our collections, we will need to diminish the purchase of books and to cancel, on an ongoing basis, subscriptions to periodicals and to loose-leaf publications in order to be able to afford more access to electronic material. This transfer from printed material to electronic material may have a negative impact on our service to clientele, because it will take more time to obtain printed information to which we no longer subscribe.
The approved supplementary estimates in 1994-95 have allowed us to upgrade the infrastructure and our equipment. We were able to enhance the OASIS network in the main library and in the La Promenade building. The cabling is now complete, and the installation of concentrators and transceivers should be completed shortly.
.1550
Multimedia PCs have been purchased and will serve as client workstations at the main library and in our three branch libraries. These multimedia PCs permit full-page display of documents and are equipped with CD-ROM readers and a sound card for purposes of consulting future products containing text, sound, and images. Multimedia products cover the range of information from encyclopaedias to products available in multimedia format on the Internet.
Our file servers have been upgraded and all our microcomputers are at least 386 models. When installations are completed, all staff who require a computer will have one.
We have purchased a CD-ROM server that will be accessible to parliamentarians through OASIS before the summer. This will give access to some information that is now only accessible to library staff and clients who come to our service points.
Our telephone system will be upgraded and voice mail made more widely available.
In conclusion, the library approach in the use of technology will be to continue to provide our staff with the tools and the information required to maintain the quality of service that has been our trademark for many years and to facilitate access by parliamentarians to relevant information as long as necessary budgets will be available.
Thank you, Mr. Co-Chairman. My colleagues and I will be pleased to answer any questions from the members of the committee.
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): Thank you. Are there any questions?
Mrs. Debien: Good afternoon, gentlemen. To facilitate my understanding, and please excuse my ignorance, in the main estimates for 1995-1996 on page 1-22, can you indicate in decreasing order which budget items have been the most affected? I gather the most significant reductions relate to personnel. I'd be interested in knowing how the other budget items rank in decreasing order?
Mr. Paré: I believe you are referring to table 3.
Mrs. Debien: It's this document here in Part I.
Mr. Jean-Jacques Cardinal (Director General, Administration and Personnel, Library of Parliament): On what page, Mrs. Debien?
Mrs. Debien: On page 1-22.
Mr. Cardinal: You can find the same table in the estimates we distributed, table 3 gives you the same information.
Mrs. Debien: Yes. I started with the more complicated. I'm sorry.
Mr. Cardinal: Not at all. You're quite right. There was a significant impact on salary and wages with a reduction of $317,000 in comparison to the main estimates for 1994-1995. With respect to goods and services, there's an increase of $44,000 between 1994-1995 and 1995-1996. There's also a significant reduction in capital expenditures down from $198,000 to $105,000. By far the largest amount of the total reduction of $366,000, namely $317,000, relates to personnel.
With the personnel budget accounting for approximately 85% of the total estimates, it is understandable that the budget cuts will affect mainly the salary envelop.
.1555
Mrs. Debien: I have another question that doesn't necessarily relate to the estimates. It concerns the Wellington Branch, Mr. Paré. Construction work has been going on for about 11 months now and the research service of the official opposition is wondering when it will be able to make use of the Wellington Branch.
Mr. Paré: According to our latest information, we should be able to return to this branch at the end of December 1995.
Mrs. Debien: What is the reason for the project delay?
Mr. Paré: It is a construction and conversion project. There were probably unforseen delays but it was expected that we would be unable to occupy the premises for at least 18 to 20 months.
Mrs. Debien: The facility was supposed to be ready for September 1995 and now you are talking about December.
Mr. Paré: Mr. LeMay can give you a more detailed answer.
Mr. François LeMay (Director General, Information and Technical Services, Parliamentary Library): Initially, the completion date was supposed to be September 1995. The construction work comes under Public Works. I've been told that the delay is due to the evaluation work relating to air circulation. They've had to install a new system within the floor and were unable to develop plans and specifications before the asbestos was removed. So the asbestos was removed, a certain amount of time was required for calls for tenders and then they were able to go ahead with the project.
Mrs. Debien: I see. Thank you.
[English]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): Mrs. Jennings, you had in effect encouraged or requested this report. Maybe I should ask you if you'd like to -
Mrs. Jennings (Mission - Coquitlam): Thank you. About how much time do I have in the first set of questions? Is it about five minutes? What do we normally do?
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): Are there other people waiting to question? I think we could take five easily, perhaps ten. It will be a flexible five minutes.
Mrs. Jennings: I have a couple of questions to ask now, Mr. Joint Chairman, and then maybe some later.
First of all, I'd like to preface my remarks by saying I appreciate the use of the library. I realize the necessity of it for all the members, and I know we are all very appreciative of everything you do to help us in it. However, as with all organizations, I think we are all aware, as Mr. Paré has said, that cost seems to be something we have to address.
First of all, Mr. Finsten, I wonder if you could tell me what percentage of your research offices are at or near the top of the pay scales right at this time and also what you do to keep them motivated. I'm probably thinking about professional development. Could something like that be done? Do you have regular exchanges, for instance, with the congressional reserve service in Washington? Do you have study leaves? Just what do we do?
Mr. Hugh Finsten (Director General, Research Branch, Library of Parliament): With regard to your initial question concerning at what level my staff are, I don't have the exact figures here, but I'd hazard a guess that about 30% to 40% would probably be at the senior level. Most of the rest would be at the intermediate level, and there probably would be a few at the junior level.
Mrs. Jennings: Is there such a thing as professional development for the ones who are at the senior level?
Mr. Finsten: The interest of our professional staff is usually to go to seminars and conferences. We certainly encourage people to keep up their studies in their various areas to interact with colleagues, to make contacts. Rarely do we refuse a request for that type of session, conferences or seminars.
Mrs. Jennings: Thank you.
I wonder, Mr. Cardinal, if I could address something to you now. I see from the budget that the library spends $2.444 million on the operating costs of the administration arm. That's chart 2. I have a couple of questions on that.
I notice again salaries and wages are on chart 3. My question relates to salaries. Basically, I guess I'm curious. What part of salaries here is the administration for salaries? If that is not, are the salaries perhaps over on chart 3? How much of that is administration salaries?
.1600
Just so you know where I'm coming from, I am thinking there may be some way Pay and Benefits, for instance, could go under the House organization. Is that a possibility, that we could look at removing that expense, if that's part of the administration?
Mr. Cardinal: Mr. Paré noted in his opening remarks that we have indeed had preliminary discussions with the Senate and House of Commons. Pay and Benefits is indeed under consideration for a possible transfer to the House of Commons.
Mrs. Jennings: Would you say the $2.444 million under the administration is mostly salaries?
Mr. Cardinal: It is mostly salaries, and administration here would include the office of the parliamentary librarian, the associate parliamentary librarian, and a staff of five. The remainder would be salaries and wages, but at the Library of Parliament we centralize all of the operating costs. Therefore, all of the operating costs would be included under administration.
Mrs. Jennings: As well?
Mr. Cardinal: As well. We have a centralized budget, which is reflected under administration. It would be erroneous to identify the $2.549 million as being salaries and wages. It includes the Executive Office, it includes the Administration and Personnel Branch, and it also includes operating costs.
Mrs. Jennings: Would it be possible to get a breakdown of that, Mr. Cardinal?
Mr. Cardinal: Absolutely, and I can send that over to you.
Mrs. Jennings: Thank you. I wonder, Mr. Co-Chairman, if perhaps it would be enlightening sometime to have Mr. Ed Riedel, the House of Commons administrator, come before us and see what he has to say on this overall subject.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): I think that could be arranged. I'd be happy to.
Mrs. Jennings: Thank you.
Mr. Cardinal: May I intervene and advise the co-chairs that Mr. Ed Riedel is no longer the administrator in the House of Commons. In fact, the position of administrator has been abolished. The administrative responsibilities in the House of Commons now come under Mary Anne Griffith, who is the deputy clerk.
Mrs. Jennings: Would it be appropriate to have Mary Anne Griffith speak with us?
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): Perhaps. I don't know how fully she's gotten into her new office, but if it were possible and useful, then I think we should act on that. Mrs. Jennings has a thoughtful suggestion.
Mrs. Jennings: Thank you, and thank you Mr. Cardinal.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): I take notice that Senator Doyle has very graciously assumed the post of interim co-chair. Senator Riel had to leave.
Are there any further questions? Mr. English, please.
Mr. English (Kitchener): I'm substituting on this committee, so I'm not that familiar with the subject.
One thing I have noticed is that several people from your staff fill positions on committees and work on reports. Those same committees often hire outsiders to do the work that is sometimes done by researchers for the Library of Parliament.
I was struck by one thing, and that is when the outsiders are hired, the cost is broken down as hourly or indeed daily consulting rates, which could be very high - as high as $400 to $500 per day. In the case of the Library of Parliament researchers, it doesn't show up on the budget in the same way. Is it an internal cost accounting method that somehow attributes to your budget, from the committee budgets, the work that is done by your researchers for the committee?
Mr. Paré: Yes, we have an internal cost analysis and cost breakdown of all the researchers working for committee. In fact, we do that and report to the Standing...
Mr. Finsten: Liaison.
Mr. Paré: ...the liaison committee. Every six months we report to them, and we have a breakdown of all the person-days worked for different committees and the costs.
Mr. English: Is it charged to the committee budget?
Mr. Paré: No, it's just for information, but it's in the budget of the library.
Mr. English: If, therefore, committees hired consultants from the Library of Parliament, then that could augment your income in this period of cut-backs, could it not?
Would it be possible for the House of Commons to consider limitations on the hiring of outside consultants and emphasize the use of researchers from the Library of Parliament and in some way give the credit for that additional work to the Library of Parliament?
.1605
Mr. Paré: My understanding is that they already have cuts on the House budget for research for committees.
But when the committees hire specialists, they have to pay for them.
Mr. English: But not from the -
Mr. Paré: No, it's not from our budget. It's in the budget of the -
Mr. English: Mrs. Debien and I are on a committee where we've just used Mr. Schmidt from the library, who did an outstanding job writing a report for us.
I know in other cases, we're thinking of other things. We're planning to hire outside consultants. Limits were placed upon that.
Obviously, your staffing problem creates difficulties here. If limits were placed on the outside hiring or if there were financial transfers to the library, allowing the library to hire additional people, wouldn't this in some way assist the financial cut-backs?
Mr. Paré: It is possible to do that. We can hire a specialist for a committee, and the specialist could be from the library if the chairman and the committee chose to do that.
If we don't have the expertise, and if this is a special expertise that the committee needs, then what I have seen over the last couple of years during this parliament is that committees sometimes have a hired specialist and they have paid for the specialist on the committee.
Perhaps if Mr. Finsten could -
Mr. English: I'd like to just elaborate on that. The co-chairman and I both came from university environments in which we were encouraged to sell our services outside and bring money in.
In effect, I'm asking whether you could do that. Could you be the agency through which consultants are hired? In some way, that could be used to supplement your budget.
Mr. Finsten: I guess any additional resources that could be given to our service would be quite welcome.
Right now we have staff at almost every committee in the House and the Senate. And often it's not just one person, it's two people. We have only 60 professionals, and we're talking about32 standing committees plus about eight subcommittees.
That only represents about 40% of the total work we do, because we also work for individual members and we work for parliamentary associations.
As Mr. Paré mentioned, there have been cutbacks in the House budgets with regard to outside contracting. And so we're getting even more work, particularly with parliamentary associations.
There are reasons to go outside, such as our not always having the expertise. I guess a decision can be made at any time on whether the library has the expert in that area or whether for a period of time a committee may want to hire someone from outside.
In the past, we have hired outside people. We provide the office. They use our administration, our word processing services, our clerical services. So it works very well. We have done that in the past, and we could do it in the future.
Mr. English: I don't want to persist too long on this, but the rates for the outside consultants seem to me much higher than would be the salary allocations of the researchers from the Library of Parliament who work for the committees. Is it that the internal accounting method doesn't give the benefit to the Library of Parliament that it should from this, or that it doesn't act as an incentive to committees to refrain from hiring outside consultants?
Mr. Finsten: I'm not sure why there is outside hiring. As I say, sometimes there is a reason when it is in a very specialized area. I think our costs are quite reasonable. But I guess you'd have to ask the individual chairman or the individual committees why they're going outside.
The other issue, as I mentioned, is that we have no more staff to put anywhere. We're getting more work because of the cut-backs and we would need more resources.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): This question has been raised before in the committee and I guess is in some sense beyond the mandate of the librarian.
Perhaps it's a little unfair to ask for interpretations of why committees act in particular ways, but there has been some degree of consensus within this committee that perhaps parliamentary committees, when it comes to their expense accounts, operate as a law unto themselves. And we have felt that in a period of severe budgetary constraints on the library where the facilities involving people are being cut back, strong pressure should be used upon parliamentary committees to utilize the services of Parliament. We have also felt that if there are funds available for research, those should be credited to the parliamentary library.
.1610
You are dealing with a species of creative tension between parliamentary committees and their sources of funds and the library. Our function here, we've generally concluded, would be to encourage committees to use self-restraint in terms of going outside, particularly where that involves some species of double-dipping in terms of former parliamentarians or people who are competing in the outside commercial world.
If I may say so, Mr. English, I think your remarks have been very helpful and reinforce a feeling that many of us have had and may wish to express more formally.
I would say, though, that I am very impressed with the range of expertise of the parliamentary research staff, and I would find it difficult to imagine there are many subjects on which the library does not have in-depth research expertise available. Therefore, the decision not to use the library has not perhaps been a reaction to lack of expertise, but simply the preference of a committee to go its own way in a period of budgetary constraint. It may be proper for this committee to suggest that perhaps committees should be constrained to go first to the library, but I trespass beyond my function.
I appreciate the measured responses of the librarian and Mr. Finsten on this issue, which involves judgments on committees and, as I say, are beyond the issues of protocol.
Mrs. Debien, you had an intervention; I'm sorry.
[Translation]
Mrs. Debien: The issue Mr. English raised is particularly important. As you said,Mr. Chairman, we already spoke of the matter at a previous meeting. I'm also pleased that the issue was raised by a government member. Speaking for myself, I completely agree.
Senator Gauthier was also present at that meeting. We discussed many things, including the fact that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs spent a lot of money on research. Given the fact that the Parliamentary Library is in for a tough year - namely 1996-1997 - it was strongly suggested, as far as I can remember, that the research budgets of House committees be turned over to the Library of Parliament, and that committees go directly to the Library when they need research done.
In answer to that suggestion, I said that committee chairmen would probably not agree. But I'm glad you just took up the matter. Perhaps you could talk to your colleagues.
[English]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): We can, later in the day perhaps, pass a recommendation if we wish to consider that, but I'll consider moving on with our round of questions.
Mr. Maloney.
Mr. Maloney (Erie): Just on that very point, why don't we proceed with the recommendation at this point before we move on? I think there's a consensus here that everyone agrees with that. Let's deal with the matter.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): Am I correct in sensing a consensus on this? If so, we could proceed to a recommendation.
Mrs. Jennings: I'd just like to be clear on the recommendation. Although we did discuss contracting out earlier, and I certainly think we have to look at it, I also recognize there are times when we require expertise from universities, etc. I would like to know exactly what the recommendation is.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): Mrs. Debien had made a particularly felicitously worded recommendation.
Mr. English, we could come back to that. You have an intervention.
Mr. English: In the case of the review that Mrs. Debien and I just worked on, Mr. Schmidt was the researcher and largely wrote the report in association with the work of the parties involved, and we did need someone more specialized. It was a person whom he recommended, and the person was hired at a fairly modest rate - I think he could have been hired through the library, maybe he wasn't, I'm not sure - but it seemed to work so very well that it almost seemed a model of the way that committees should proceed.
.1615
As the chair said, the Library of Parliament people have impressed me so much by their expertise. It seems fine to me if there is a case in which a university person or an independent researcher has to be hired. In my view the hiring seems to work better if the person who is the researcher on the committee from the Library of Parliament is involved - someone that he or she can work with more effectively.
I'm supporting the sense of the resolution.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): We could have a recommendation suggesting that where research contracts for parliamentary committees are involved, the obligation should be to coordinate that through the research division of the Library of Parliament with full consultation. I think maybe something in those terms would come very close to the thrust of what Mrs. Debien said and of what Mr. English has said. I would welcome any refinement of language.
[Translation]
Mrs. Debien: Of course, an appropriate transfer of funds would have to take place. We can't given the library another mandate without providing it with the funds to fulfill that mandate.
[English]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): So that any resulting extra charges of the research division of the library is involved... be credited to the library's research division... Would that meet...? I hesitate to put words in your mouth because you're very skilled...
[Translation]
You're very good at drafting resolutions. I believe we adopted the two main points contained in your suggestion, but if you could write it out, it would greatly help us.
Mrs. Debien: No. It's a spontaneous suggestion for now. There are several points involved. What I suggest, Mr. Chairman, is that everyone try to come up with a recommendation reflecting our discussion. We would then come up with a formal recommendation at another meeting before Parliament adjourns.
Everyone here is working in good faith. We tried to go over every issue involved in this matter. Since there are some things we may have forgotten, and since I'd like to think about this issue a little more, we could all come together at the next meeting and develop a unanimous recommendation, which we could then take to Mr. Paré for consultation.
[English]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): Interim Joint Chairman Senator Doyle has submitted a text... Well, in any case, it's from various sources. I thought I recognized The Globe and Mail editorial style -
The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Doyle): Never.
The Joint Chairman (McWhinney): Of some years ago.
It says:
- The Joint Committee recommends to the Speaker of the Senate and to the Speaker of the
House of Commons that select committees of each House and parliamentary association be
asked to use the resources of the research service of the Library of Parliament on a priority basis.
The Joint Committee rcommends to the Speaker of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Commons that select committees of each House and parliamentary association be asked to use the resources of the research service of the Library of Parliament on a priority basis.
[English]
Mr. Maloney: Reference should then be made that the appropriate funding be transferred or that the charges would be made from one committee to -
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): Yes. We could add an addendum that where this occurs appropriate funding credit be accorded to the research section of the library. Would that be acceptable, Mrs. Debien?
[Translation]
Mrs. Debien: Yes, but I want to make sure that I understand. What I basically said at the last meeting - and I think I repeated it here today - was that the research budget of committees be added to the Parliamentary Library's budget to help it carry out research for committees.
.1620
I was trying to make the point that the research budgets of the various committees should be transferred to the Parliamentary Library's budget.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): That's a good idea.
Mrs. Debien: We're not asking for extra money. It's just a transfer.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney):If we do that, we are exceeding our constitutional mandate. I think that if we stick to our recommendations concerning the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons, they will be able to take them to the next stage. We cannot recommend a transfer of funds.
Mrs. Debien: In that case, our recommendation becomes a paper tiger.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): I'm in complete agreement with your idea, but I think a constitutional expert would have some reservations. However, I'm in the hands of my colleagues...
[English]
Mr. English: Could we recommend that it be considered? I can see the argument that it may go beyond our mandate in this committee at this point. But we could recommend that they consider having the research budgets allocated to the library, and that at the present moment they would consult with the library when they were spending funds on outside research.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): That's something we could do.
[Translation]
Do you agree, Mrs. Debien?
Mrs. Debien: That's perfect. It's an excellent compromise.
[English]
Mrs. Jennings: I'm not concerned as long as there is no additional funding being asked for here.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): There is not.
Are we all in accord with this text as noted by my co-president and the greffier? Can I ask if this is the case?
[Translation]
Mrs. Debien: I'm going to spoil your party. I'm a visual, and not an auditive, person. Unfortunately, it's hard for me to understand the recommendation when you read it. I would like to see it in writting.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): We could certainly have that for the next meeting.
Mrs. Debien: But it might only be a draft.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): Given the fact that our meetings are so far apart, and given the fact that we agree on the essence of this recommendation, I think we should proceed as soon as possible. I'm quite willing to wait, but I don't want to waste an opportunity. However, I basically agree with your suggestion.
Mrs. Debien: Well, let's take advantage of the fact that we are all in agreement.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): Fine.
[English]
Is it adopted, then, subject to the presentation of the written text as requested by Mrs. Debien?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): Are there other questions here?
Mr. Maloney had a question, but one issue that flowed from Mr. English's comments and that we've already touched on was simply - Mrs. Jennings also raised it - the issue of whether or not we were properly utilizing the resources of very talented people with high qualifications. In other words, the economy is producing a routinization of highly talented people's services. What we do to maintain other works, other constructive creative works that librarians traditionally do - is, in effect, being sacrificed because of this.
I'll just simply note that, and then we'll go back to Mr. Maloney immediately.
Mr. Maloney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a question for Mr. Paré on his presentations on the budget.
You indicated that funding in the amount of $45,000 to train MPs on the Internet had not been approved and would perhaps have to be absorbed in your budget. In your presentation on your technology, you indicated that it's a pilot project. There are seven members on the Internet program, but it will be increasing to 32. Are these interconnected or are they separate and distinct items?
Mr. Paré: Not directly, no. In the budget, we asked to have this additional $45,000 in order to provide this training. It was part of our first presentation, but it was not accepted. When we came back, though, we got 2% rather than 5%, so I think we will be able to absorb it.
.1625
On the matter of the number of members' offices, I think the interest has increased very quickly and the pilot test went very well. So we increased to 32 or so, and I understand this will increase over the next few months. We will be able to do it. We will adjust and change the priority.
I know that my colleague, Mr. LeMay, is the one who will apply that and he will certainly find a way to provide training on Internet for the members.
Mr. LeMay: Just to clarify, we had committed to doing the training on Internet ourselves, therefore whether or not the budget was left in there, we had told the speakers we would do it. So we have to cut elsewhere to continue providing the Internet training. It's a matter of priority and we are looking at other areas where we have to cut back and the amount that has been identified for our branch in cutbacks.
Senator Doyle: I wonder if you could tell me whether you foresee this plan extending into the Senate. There are a lot of young potential students waiting over there.
Mr. Paré: Do you mean the student program?
Senator Doyle: No. I'm speaking of the senators themselves.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): Young student senators.
Mr. Paré: We provide services to both the Senate and the House, so for us they are both clients of the library at the same level. So I would say this applies to both the House and the Senate. The cutbacks apply to the library, and we don't divide it between the Senate and the House. So if cutbacks affect the clients of the House, they will also affect the clients of the Senate.
Maybe I misunderstand the question.
Senator Doyle: I assume that the 32 who are now receiving instruction are members of the House of Commons. Are they?
Mr. Paré: Yes, they are members of the House but we will train the members of the Senate too.
Mr. LeMay: The main reason we haven't contacted anyone at the Senate is because the Senate has not made the decision to join the Internet node on the Hill, or been provided with the equipment to access it. It is providing information to the system, but my understanding is the technical facility to do the training on the pilot project is not there at this time.
Mr. Paré: If there is a change in the policy of the Senate and it goes with the node, of course we will provide training for the senators too.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): What has happened to the bibliographical and other professional and intellectual aspects of library work in this period of constraints and cutting back of staff?
This might be a question for Mr. LeMay but I'll direct it to you, Mr. Paré, and you can delegate. Is the library able to proceed with some of the interesting work it had already begun in collecting sources and issuing specialist bibliographies, drawing on its resources, as is very much necessary to the continuing professional cultural development of trained librarians?
Mr. Paré: In a general way, we had to cut the number of bibliographies and compilations we were doing this year because of the number of the requests for information, documentation and reference.
I would ask François to perhaps pursue the answer.
Mr. LeMay: In general, what Mr. Paré has said is exactly the situation. We've had an increase this year to over 108,000 in the overall number of questions. They were from members, senators and those who are authorized staff.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): But they were predominantly from members and senators.
.1630
Mr. LeMay: Yes. About 15% of those questions come from those in the research branch, but they are asking for information to either assist committees or reply to questions from members. This would also include questions from caucus groups.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): Do you have any idea what percentage of members and senators are asking the questions? Might it be somebody like Mr. English asking a thousand questions because of his professional skills?
Mr. LeMay: We have an overhead to show the breakdown of requests by members and senators. We briefly mentioned in Mr. Paré's presentation that we are now testing a tracking system for questions and hope to be able to get back to what Mrs. Jennings requested earlier by the end of this fiscal year and report the number of questions that were asked by a member's office. At this point, aside from saying close to 100% of senators and members use the library, we can't say how many questions are being asked.
You can see that 54% of the questions that were asked came from the House, 13% were from the Senate and 5% were from research caucus groups. Madam Debien was referring to the groups and waiting for the branch to reopen, because they used it. The library asked 15% of the questions, and this is mostly the research branch. We have a branch library set up that supports its requirements. The media asked 6% of the questions. The press gallery has access to the library and uses the library on a regular basis.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): What sort of questions were from the press?
Mr. LeMay: Typically, members of the press would ask if we could find out the cost of living figures for the various industrialized countries, because the cost of living figure was coming out in Canada and they wanted to be able to compare. They ask the same type of questions we get from members' offices.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): Has one ever considered asking for a fee for that service, if it's a question not strictly related to members and the like? Has one considered providing this type of service on a commercial basis?
Mr. Paré: Traditionally, members of the press gallery have always been allowed to use the library. I don't think charging them for that service has ever been considered. They are part of the Hill and need the information, so the service was offered to them.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): But charging a fee for university researchers or companies would be relevant, obviously. They're not part of the Hill family.
Mr. Paré: They represent 5%. I don't know if it's -
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): - worth the trouble.
Mr. Paré: I must specify that they are allowed to use only the documentation and reference services. They are not allowed to use the research branch, which is only for senators, members and committees.
Mr. LeMay: To come back to your question, we got this increase in the number of questions this year, but it was only about 2% overall, from 106,000 to 108,000. But in the substantive questions, the more difficult questions, the increase was over 29% in the fiscal year that just ended. That's where we had to put all our professional resources. We basically had to take them away from other types of duties to give priority to answering questions. We therefore had to put the issue you raised on the back burner.
Bibliographies have not been done. We have people who would like to do them, as Mrs. Jennings was saying, as sort of a professional challenge or development. It's part of their training to do this type of work; to be able to get away from the pressure to develop works that would be used extensively.
We have basically done away with bibliographies and compilations, which were being done by semi-professional staff. We maintain only the basic compilations and bibliographies we feel are essential. There is a great interest from staff in doing them, but we have not allocated resources in that area this year except on one special occasion.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): Basically, you are saying you don't have the financial resources to allocate in this period of restraint.
.1635
Mr. LeMay: What we have done with the issue of financial resources is we have cut back on the hours of work on term people, and therefore they are working 30 hours instead of 37.5 hours. So we're losing a day's work from them to save a few thousand dollars throughout the year.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): That big jump in 1994-95 in terms of utilization is more than an incremental increase. Do you have any speculation? Does it mean that the new members of Parliament are more curious or more inclined to research than older members, people who have served before? Is there something related to the class of '93 that was elected? Are we brighter and more diligent about researching before we start speaking?
Mr. LeMay: We certainly found that there was a general interest across the board right at the outset, as opposed to previous Parliaments, because many were coming back and probably had found other sources of information.
We did some marketing when the new Parliament came in, and I think it paid dividends. But it has given us this extra work. We are not complaining about this. The only thing is we have to reallocate the resources to this area, which is the primary responsibility we have in supplying the answers on time.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): As a supplement to the resolution, we have in essence just approved this by consensus. Would it be helpful to note that, in the period of budgetary constraints and the diminution of library resources, very vital aspects of professional development of librarians are in effect falling into discard and this will have a long-range impact on the library? This would reinforce the request of Mr. English's resolution that we encourage parliamentary associations and others to use the library facilities rather than going outside, that we encourage the Speaker and the president of the Senate to do that.
Would something like that being on the record be helpful?
Mr. Paré: Yes, I think it would be.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): John, would you be agreeable to adding something of that sort?
Mr. English: I think that's very useful.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): It was certainly one of the thrusts of Mrs. Jennings's request for this report in the first place.
[Translation]
Mrs. Debien: Mr. Paré, I am going to ask you again the question I asked you earlier on the recommendations by the Auditor General in his 1992 report regarding the combining of certain services on the Hill and, among other things, on the recommendations you had made, on page 51 of your planning document, with respect to the House and Senate services. You said, in a brief sentence, that the Senate had had preliminary discussions on this matter.
If I understand correctly, the Auditor General's report is from 1992. The recommendation was therefore made three years ago. You mentioned preliminary discussions. What is their status?
Mr. Paré: First, the Auditor General's recommendations were made to the House of Commons and the Senate so that both houses could study together matters of mutual interest. The Library was not included at that point. The Auditor General prepared a report on the Library in 1991.
Given the budget cutbacks, we initiated discussions with the House to see whether certain services could be provided more economically by one of the three partners with a view to making economies of scale.
Mrs. Debien: On page 51, you even provided some specific examples of service combinations. It seems to me that considerable savings were involved.
Mr. Paré: Of course the negotiations with the Senate on the acquisition of books and periodicals is just about complete, and we will look after buying books and periodicals for Senators. Obviously the cost will be borne by the Senate.
.1640
We will provide the necessary expertise. We already have it. This is where economies of scale may be made. They don't need people to do it.
Matters are still at the discussion stage as regards the House of Commmons. The information and indexing services are still being discussed. On the other hand, the Library proposed that the House of Commons consider taking over the Library network support. With the House of Commons, we are looking to see whether significant savings can be made if the House takes over this service.
In fact, the savings will mean savings for Parliament as a whole and not simply for the Library, the House or the Senate. This is the thrust of our discussions with the House of Commons and the Senate.
Mrs. Debien: Thank you, Mr. Paré.
[English]
Mrs. Jennings: I have a couple more questions to ask Mr. Paré. Actually, I'm returning to questions I've already asked in other meetings.
We've often discussed the Wellington and Confederation libraries, the smaller libraries, and I do realize you are restructuring the Wellington one. However, I have to come back to the usage of the libraries. I think on the Confederation one we're down to 3.55% and on the other one, Wellington, 2.8%. I really question keeping them as they are, knowing there are newspaper reading rooms there as well.
Do you have figures in your possession on just what cost savings there would be if we closed them? Are you considering their closure, and do you have figures on the intensity of their use apart from these; anything newer than those?
Mr. Paré: For the Confederation branch, if we have a decrease in the demand, it's partly because of the reading room. In the Confederation we have a small reading room on the third floor and a branch library in the basement. Because of cut-backs we have not been able to staff the reading rooms all the time, so we don't have any account of the use of the reading rooms for the last several months. This has affected the statistics on that, yes.
As to the closing of branches, we have proposed that before, if it would be more efficient to close some. When we proposed these closures we were always asked by the House and the Senate to maintain those open, because the members in those buildings want to have access to the documentation right in the same building. We have not been successful in the past.
Mrs. Jennings: I see. In view of the new Internet program and the accessibility members have right from their offices I thought perhaps the scenario had changed in this aspect.
Mr. Paré: Perhaps we'll recommend that, because the review program we are undertaking now will tell us that. On the other hand, practices in the way the members and their staffs work may in the future justify the branches even more: training in using a database, for instance. Rather than having just one place where people have to come, the main library, it may be better to have computers and a stand-alone computer station there. Then they would go down and they would be trained there. That is also an aspect we are considering. In the review program we will consider all of those and then we will make a recommendation.
Mrs. Jennings: My second and last set of questions. I am concerned about the the cost of the process of research papers, individual costs. You just touched on it briefly. I would really like to know the cost of the research reports parliamentarians receive, if there is any way we can break it down.
I would assume because of the material we have there is yet no way you know of doing it. I think it's time to point out when government agencies become cost-conscious we act more like the private sector. Even the lowliest manufacturing company knows the price of a widget, if I can use that term, and I think we should be able to do that too.
On the subject of the program review, the steering committee, I understand, is the one heading it. I would like to know exactly who you have in mind for being on that committee, how much it will cost, and whether we will be receiving interim reports as you go on. I'm hoping that we'll still have access to you from time to time as the review process carries on.
.1645
Mr. Paré: First, I'd like to tackle the question about the research publications. With the cost analysis, which I mentioned will be completed by the end of this May, we would be able to tell you what the costs are of each publication.
Mrs. Jennings: Thank you.
Mr. Paré: In the short future, we'll be able to tell you.
As for the second part of the question, dealing with the program review, we on the steering committee - I should say this first - want to keep expenses to a minimum. We have expertise within the library, some people who have already had program reviews before. I'm one of those. I have experience in that.
We also want to work by committees, and for the steering committee we have in mind the inspector generals and the parliamentary librarian. We will add outside expertise as much as we need it.
For the operations that we foresee will need re-engineering and reorganization, we plan to set up small committees with people who are responsible for that operation and someone from the outside who doesn't know about this operation and can come and bring fresh ideas.
So this is the idea. We will probably have the support of the House and the Senate in that.
Mrs. Jennings: Will we be able to get interim reports from you?
Mr. Paré: Yes. If I have interim reports, of course I will send them. Probably we will have interim reports. We fix a schedule, but sometimes it's very tight.
Mrs. Jennings: Thank you, Mr. Paré.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): We will proceed to the final round of questions.
Madam Debien.
[Translation]
Mrs. Debien: Ms Jennings was talking about closing branches. I was, perhaps, not paying attention as she was speaking, but, as a member of the official opposition, I would certainly oppose closing the Wellington Branch, and you will understand why there is no question of closing La Promenade Branch. This is a rather short explanation, but it says it all.
Mr. Paré: As I was saying, the branches may play a different role in the future if the Library is involved increasingly in training people and members to use the databanks. I have a hard time seeing everyone showing up at one place, which is supposed to provide rapid access. Someone needing information could go to the branch, and the librarian or a specialist there could help.
We may, in the course of our analysis, find other reasons for keeping more branches. Personnel costs have been the reason we proposed closing one or two branches. Keeping a branch open requires three full-time staff to cover lunchtime, leave and so on.
Mrs. Debien: Then I would hope that thought would be given to fixing up La Promenade Branch as a result.
[English]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): Members of the committee, we have our consensus statement. I will communicate that on your behalf to the president of the Senate and the Speaker of the House.
I will add, too, if I may, an expression of concern at the same time of the diminution of the facilities for promoting the continuing professional and intellectual development of the librarians because of the pressure of the constraints, the failure to allow the development of bibliographical and other scientific facilities necessary for their professional advancement.
.1650
So if we're all in accord with that, I will ask the joint clerk to prepare letters for my signature on that.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): Is there any other business or any other observations?
Mr. Maloney: Are you making reference to the cost of the research being charged to the respective committee budgets?
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): That was adopted and inadvertently was left off the recommendation. That is being added. It is a vital component, and we were all agreed on it.
Mr. Maloney: Okay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Debien: Mr. Chairman, I have just read the recommendation.
The Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): It is not complete. We unfortunately failed to include...
Mrs. Debien: The budget component.
The Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): That is right. It will certainly be included in the final recommendation.
[English]
Mrs. Jennings: May I ask if it's in the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence that I did ask for a breakdown of the administration costs on chart 2?
The Joint Chairman (Mr. McWhinney): Is that noted?
We can have the report back for the next meeting.
I would like to thank the librarian and Mr. Cardinal, Mr. Finsten, and Mr. LeMay for their courtesy, as usual, and the wealth of information they've supplied us with. It has helped us very much.
Thank you, gentlemen, for coming along.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, for your cooperation.
I declare the meeting adjourned.